The family of Charlie Gard condemned the “abhorrent” threats made against judges and the doctors looking after the critically ill baby, before the latest high court hearing in the long-running fight over his care.
Their appeal for calm followed a warning by the judge the previous day that “vile” abuse had been directed at staff at Great Ormond Street hospital, which is involved in the legal action.
“We absolutely abhor any suggestion of any threats or intimidation against members of the judiciary, legal profession or medical profession,” a spokesman for Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, told reporters before the hearing at the high court on Friday.
Speaking on behalf of “the entire family and their supporters”, Alasdair Seton-Marsden said anyone wanting to help the family should demonstrate peacefully, donate to the family’s fund or sign their petition, adding: “We absolutely abhor violence.”
Opening the proceedings on Friday afternoon, Mr Justice Francis thanked the family for the appeal for calm.
He had previously warned that anyone making such threats would be punished should their identities come to light. He said he wanted that message to go out “loud and clear”, adding: “I don’t know how anybody can think they are helping the parents’ case.”
During the proceedings on Friday, the judge clarified that he had not held Charlie’s parents in any way responsible for encouraging such behaviour and spoke of his desire to be as sensitive as possible towards them. They had become angered during Thursday’s hearing and walked out.
On Friday, the court heard that an American specialist who has offered to treat Charlie was due to examine him early next week, followed by a meeting of experts to discuss the baby’s case.
Yates is expected to be allowed to attend that meeting, frustrating the hospital’s attempts to stop her. Its lawyer, Katie Gollop QC, argued that the clinicians might feel unable to speak freely if the child’s mother were present.
The family’s barrister, Grant Armstrong, countered that Yates’ intimate knowledge of her son and his condition would be of use to the medical experts. The judge sought a compromise in which Yates could attend if a chair be appointed to lead the meeting, with Charlie’s mother due to indicate her consent in principle late on Friday.
The judge also lifted a restriction barring the naming of the doctor offering hope to Charlie’s family. Dr Michio Hirano, a professor of neurology at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, had told the high court via videolink on Thursday that he estimated the “chance of meaningful success [of the treatment] to be at least 10%”. He characterised that as a “conservative estimate” of improvement in muscle strength. Other expert opinions on Charlie’s condition have been more pessimistic.
The child’s parents believed that naming Hirano could put him under pressure but the judge lifted the restrictions with the professor’s blessing.
Charlie’s parents want the judge to rule that the 11-month-old, who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage, should be allowed to undergo a therapy trial. Specialists at Great Ormond Street say the therapy is experimental and will not help, and that life support treatment should stop.
The hearing continues.
